Having grown up in the 1970’s, my young mind was blessed with television shows such as In Search Of… that featured segments on topics such as bigfoot, UFOs and historical mysteries. One of the regularly-featured enigmas in these shows was the disappearance of Amelia Earhart in 1937 while she attempted to circumnavigate the globe in a small plane. Her body nor the plane wreckage was ever recovered and their location remains a mystery to this day. However, some progress has been made in this missing-persons case. Tantalizing information has arisen in recent years, and more surfaces all the time. Just last week I read a recent news item about some possible progress on the Earhart mystery, and when I scanned the article I was surprised to find a familiar name from bigfoot research: Jeff Glickman.

For those new to bigfooting, Jeff Glickman was the executive director of a $75k examination of the Patterson/Gimlin Film. The study was commissioned by a group that went by the name of the North American Science Institute (NASI), though it is unclear if this group did anything else but this one study. The study lasted for several years culminating in a 1998 publication entitled, “Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon.” An abridged version of the paper can be read by clicking this link.

Glickman’s bigfoot work came to some conclusions that even today seem unlikely (such as the mass of the film subject being 1957 pounds), but did so using well-established methods. At the time, Glickman’s analysis was one of the best ever done on the film, and we in the bigfoot community applauded his scientific approach to the film. Since the publication of Glickman’s report, only one analysis of the film is of the same or better caliber: When Roger Met Patty by Bill Munns (which is a must-read for anyone interested in the Patterson/Gimlin Film).

While I am less interested in the Earhart mystery than the bigfoot mystery, I find it interesting that Glickman is working on this project, and his involvement certainly brings to mind a couple questions. If future DNA analysis concludes that the bones are indeed Earhart’s, will Glickman’s involvement in the bigfoot subject help or hurt the acceptance of his analysis? Will the acceptance of Glickman’s work on Earhart help or hurt future acceptance of his previous bigfoot work?

It is my hope that more forensics experts like Jeff Glickman will step forward to offer their opinions on sasquatch data. Their opinions might serve to open the minds and eyes of their colleagues, thus causing a domino effect.